"At the same time, there is some truth in the report, which has France at the heart of Europe, [and] says that if France collapses then the whole of Europe collapses.

Time for Hollande and his leftist allies in Parliament is rapidly running out and the country could quickly be sucked into the vortex of financial crisis that is destroying social cohesion all over Europe.

If that happens it could be the final act for the single currency with Germany and the rich Nordic tier fleeing from what increasingly looks to be a doomed project." It will happen as ALL European politicians are too afraid to get off the Merry Go-round

...
In fact it's the very same people, the ones with the majority of the wealth,
who are driving the fear of monetary collapse, in order to keep the demands
of the people in check, to their own ultimate benefit...

Truer words have never been spoken.
I won't say it's a big conspiracy theory. But this is definitely what capitalist greed leads to. #resist

Just what is so difficult about this topic such that so many people totally fail to understand it?

Lots of people want their Government to be a combination helping hand and safety net. If some people can't meet all their needs by themselves, the Government will give it to them. Nobody would be homeless. Nobody would suffer from lack of health care, or not enough food to eat. Everyone would have nice clothes to wear and anything/everything else they could possibly want. In short, everyone would live like kings. Noble sentiment... (here it comes... wait for it...) BUT...

The 'but' is 'how is the Government gonna pay for it?' (NB: It does not matter which Government we are talking about here, they ALL have the same constraint).

Governments can only fund their activities using some combination of the ONLY three sources of money available to them. And, each one of the three sources has a downside.

The three sources of money for the Governments to spend are: 1. Taxes, 2. Borrowing, and 3. 'Printing' it.

The downside of taxation is that the higher taxes are, the less money is left over to help fund the sort of economic activity that creates wealth, and it is kinda hard to redistribute that which you don't have.

The downside of borrowing it is twofold. First, you have to eventually pay it back, and second, you have to pay some interest on it. If you can't pay the loan back on time, or even pay the interest on it, other people are gonna quit loaning it to you.

The downside of 'printing more' is inflation. You start 'printing' more money than is justified by economic growth, you devalue the money, putting an upward pressure on prices.

The situtation in Europe (and it won't be too many more years until it is in the USA as well) is that a lot of the Governments in Europe have been funding their high Government spending through excessive borrowing. Now, a few of them are having trouble making their 'loan payments'.

In the old, pre-Euro days a nation that got into this sort of trouble could just print a fark-load of money, and inflate themselves out of the hole they were in. Nowadays, because of the multinational Euro currency, these nations finding themselves in trouble no longer have the devaluation option open to them.

So, now these troubled nations have a choice. They can jack up taxes and slash spending until they get to the point where they CAN make their debt service payments (which is causing rioting in the streets in these nations as the additional economic pain over and above the pain from already soured economies hits), or they can leave the Euro, revert to their old national currencies, and inflate/devalue themselves out of the hole they are in (which they don't want to do either because they would then lose what little propping up from the few remaining strong euro-economies (like Germany) they still get).

This isn't some 'conspiracy of the Wealthy'. This is simple arithmetic. Once upon a time, when he was asked what the most powerful force in the universe was, Albert Einstein answered 'compound interest'.

Be afraid. Be very afraid...

The referenced article discusses France. But don't feel the USA is immune from it. Unless we change our spending habits, in a few years WE will be going through what Greece is now.https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

Agree with you regarding the change in spending habits. However,the day after the election, one of your writers, Thomas Fleming stated: -

"Whichever mob gets in power does not change the fact that a mob is in power. In this case, however, people like me can now look to four more years of deficit spending, foreign policy disasters, and cheap rhetoric, and we can anticipate a lifetime – blissfully short in my case – as part of the subjugated underclass of workers and professionals who do not live off the taxpayers.

To all those who voted for Obama, my final word is: It’s your country, and I hope you enjoy the ride as the good old USA plunges down the roller coaster of imperial welfarism into failure and poverty. To all the Republicans, all I can say is that you have brought this on yourselves."

It looks like your politicians won't get off the merry go-round as well.

Just what is so difficult about this topic such that so many people totally fail to understand it?

Lots of people want their Government to be a combination helping hand and safety net. If some people can't meet all their needs by themselves, the Government will give it to them. Nobody would be homeless. Nobody would suffer from lack of health care, or not enough food to eat. Everyone would have nice clothes to wear and anything/everything else they could possibly want. In short, everyone would live like kings. Noble sentiment... (here it comes... wait for it...) BUT...

I don't expect the government to give people enough money to "live like kings", I am not even against the government cutting spending for welfare programs.

The 'but' is 'how is the Government gonna pay for it?' (NB: It does not matter which Government we are talking about here, they ALL have the same constraint).

Governments can only fund their activities using some combination of the ONLY three sources of money available to them. And, each one of the three sources has a downside.

The three sources of money for the Governments to spend are: 1. Taxes, 2. Borrowing, and 3. 'Printing' it.

The downside of taxation is that the higher taxes are, the less money is left over to help fund the sort of economic activity that creates wealth, and it is kinda hard to redistribute that which you don't have....

The increased taxes could be used to fund infrastructure projects. Hence putting the money right where it needs to be to create wealth, at the bottom. This employs people of all classes, and puts the money directly into the economy, where it needs to be.#resist

Just what is so difficult about this topic such that so many people totally fail to understand it?

Lots of people want their Government to be a combination helping hand and safety net. If some people can't meet all their needs by themselves, the Government will give it to them. Nobody would be homeless. Nobody would suffer from lack of health care, or not enough food to eat. Everyone would have nice clothes to wear and anything/everything else they could possibly want. In short, everyone would live like kings. Noble sentiment... (here it comes... wait for it...) BUT...

I don't expect the government to give people enough money to "live like kings", I am not even against the government cutting spending for welfare programs.

Ok, I will say this. You are somewhat ahead of the curve for being willing to make any cuts. And I agree that 'live like kings' is a tad unrealistic, but where do you draw the line on what is cut-able and what isn't?

The programs that most will protest over any cuts whatsoever and going to be the most expensive ones. You know the ones I am talking about. The Big Three.

FDR's Social Security, Bush the Younger's Medicare Part D, and LBJ's Medicare.

I don't think that most people understand the magnitude of the problem. Per data from both the Federal Reserve and the IRS, in order to totally fund these 3 programs (and this is JUST these 3), every single US Taxpayer will have to pay a bit over 1 Million dollars each over and above the taxes and fees currently dedicated. Assuming a 50 year working life (age 20 through age 70), that is about an extra $21,000.00 a year, every year over and above Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and other fees and premiums they already pay. The money just isn't there to pay for these three, and to try to do so would tank the economy raising costs even more and putting these programs in even worse shape.

We need cuts in a BAD way. Not just cuts to the rate of growth (though those are vital as well) but actual, real CUTS to every sector of Government spending. To fail to do so is to tax/borrow/print each and every one of us into abject poverty. The US Government has over-promised us all. Some of us see the bill coming, and know that we are going to have to pay it.

The 'but' is 'how is the Government gonna pay for it?' (NB: It does not matter which Government we are talking about here, they ALL have the same constraint).

Governments can only fund their activities using some combination of the ONLY three sources of money available to them. And, each one of the three sources has a downside.

The three sources of money for the Governments to spend are: 1. Taxes, 2. Borrowing, and 3. 'Printing' it.

The downside of taxation is that the higher taxes are, the less money is left over to help fund the sort of economic activity that creates wealth, and it is kinda hard to redistribute that which you don't have....

The increased taxes could be used to fund infrastructure projects. Hence putting the money right where it needs to be to create wealth, at the bottom. This employs people of all classes, and puts the money directly into the economy, where it needs to be.

Or... how about this radical idea... We COULD leave the money in the economy, where it needs to be, and you know.... NOT tax it out of the economy in the first place.

Just what is so difficult about this topic such that so many people totally fail to understand it?

Lots of people want their Government to be a combination helping hand and safety net. If some people can't meet all their needs by themselves, the Government will give it to them. Nobody would be homeless. Nobody would suffer from lack of health care, or not enough food to eat. Everyone would have nice clothes to wear and anything/everything else they could possibly want. In short, everyone would live like kings. Noble sentiment... (here it comes... wait for it...) BUT...

I don't expect the government to give people enough money to "live like kings", I am not even against the government cutting spending for welfare programs.

Ok, I will say this. You are somewhat ahead of the curve for being willing to make any cuts. And I agree that 'live like kings' is a tad unrealistic, but where do you draw the line on what is cut-able and what isn't?

The programs that most will protest over any cuts whatsoever and going to be the most expensive ones. You know the ones I am talking about. The Big Three.

FDR's Social Security, Bush the Younger's Medicare Part D, and LBJ's Medicare.

I don't think that most people understand the magnitude of the problem. Per data from both the Federal Reserve and the IRS, in order to totally fund these 3 programs (and this is JUST these 3), every single US Taxpayer will have to pay a bit over 1 Million dollars each over and above the taxes and fees currently dedicated. Assuming a 50 year working life (age 20 through age 70), that is about an extra $21,000.00 a year, every year over and above Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and other fees and premiums they already pay. The money just isn't there to pay for these three, and to try to do so would tank the economy raising costs even more and putting these programs in even worse shape.

We need cuts in a BAD way. Not just cuts to the rate of growth (though those are vital as well) but actual, real CUTS to every sector of Government spending. To fail to do so is to tax/borrow/print each and every one of us into abject poverty. The US Government has over-promised us all. Some of us see the bill coming, and know that we are going to have to pay it.

The 'but' is 'how is the Government gonna pay for it?' (NB: It does not matter which Government we are talking about here, they ALL have the same constraint).

Governments can only fund their activities using some combination of the ONLY three sources of money available to them. And, each one of the three sources has a downside.

The three sources of money for the Governments to spend are: 1. Taxes, 2. Borrowing, and 3. 'Printing' it.

The downside of taxation is that the higher taxes are, the less money is left over to help fund the sort of economic activity that creates wealth, and it is kinda hard to redistribute that which you don't have....

The increased taxes could be used to fund infrastructure projects. Hence putting the money right where it needs to be to create wealth, at the bottom. This employs people of all classes, and puts the money directly into the economy, where it needs to be.

Or... how about this radical idea... We COULD leave the money in the economy, where it needs to be, and you know.... NOT tax it out of the economy in the first place.

AFP - The European Union looks set for fresh trouble this week as an extraordinary summit called to agree a long-term trillion-euro budget heads for an ugly showdown, possibly even failure.

Already weakened by three years of economic crisis, the 27-nation bloc of half a billion people faces new trauma at the two-day summit starting Thursday after weeks of talks that have exposed stark divisions between pro- and anti-austerity nations, as well as between the haves and have-nots.

"It's a lose-lose summit," said a senior EU diplomat. "Absolutely no one will leave this summit content if by chance we reach a solution."

"We don't exclude a breakdown," another diplomat told AFP on condition of anonymity.

Europe's leaders begin the talks on the EU's next seven-year budget at 1900 GMT Thursday, with Britain's premier David Cameron in the role of leading spoiler though most governments are putting national interest well above shared concerns.

"Cameron will come with a big knife to get spending cuts and to defend the British rebate," said an EU diplomat.

In the face of Britain's austerity-minded determination to secure a cut of up to 200 billion euros in the 2014-2020 budget, EU president Herman Van Rompuy, who will broker the talks, last week suggested a 75-billion-euro cut to the proposed 1.047 trillion euro ($1.3 trillion) budget.

And a group of Nobel laureates flew to Brussels waving a petition signed by dozens of Nobel winners urging Van Rompuy and other EU officials not to strip funds for research and innovation.

"Fortunately, we only have these summits every seven years," Van Rompuy said Friday after coming under fire from all sides.

His plan left Britain having to pay in part for its cherished yearly rebate of 3.6 billion euros, while diminishing Sweden's rebate, and failing to address Denmark's demand to have a discount too.

The three are among the 11 net contributors to the EU budget who in times of economic strain and domestic cutbacks are tired of bearing the brunt of the financial burden.

Eight of the net contributors -- Austria, Britain, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden -- have banded together to demand spending cuts, though they are far from being on the same page on what should go or by how much.

France for instance, along with Italy, is refusing any decrease whatsoever in the budget's biggest item, the subsidies paid to farmers, big and small.

"There can be no question of withdrawing even one euro from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)," said French Premier Jean-Marc Ayrault, whose government is pushing for the EU to raise new revenues through new taxes, such as one on financial transactions.

In the other corner are 15 nations from Europe's east and southern fringe who are net recipients, most often of the so-called "cohesion funds" used to help poor regions catch up economically and socially with the rest. This is the second biggest budget item after the CAP.

Cameron, who is under intense euro-sceptic pressure to wrest an agreement in Brussels, has been shuttling back and forth to raise support, travelling to the Netherlands, Italy and Germany in search of allies.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, which is the biggest contributor to the EU budget, has promised to do her utmost to ensure the summit would not end in collapse.

"Even if we are net contributors and people could perhaps think that we can live with a non-agreement, that is not our goal," Merkel said. "We want an agreement and we will talk exactly in this spirit with all countries."

Meanwhile, there is a growing exasperation with France, whose recently elected Socialist President Francois Hollande has urged Brussels to push for growth, rather than austerity, but whose obsession with maintaining the CAP will lead to cuts in programmes to help growth.

"He wanted to re-orient Europe towards employment and growth. It's a political choice. He must be consistent," said an EU official who asked not to be named.

So, it isn't just over here in the USA. Even in Europe its the makers vs. the takers scrapping over subsidies and wealth transfer payments...

Looks like Europe, just like the USA, is about to (in the words of my 3 year old son) 'fall-down-go-boom'.

I don't think that most people understand the magnitude of the problem. Per data from both the Federal Reserve and the IRS, in order to totally fund these 3 programs (and this is JUST these 3), every single US Taxpayer will have to pay a bit over 1 Million dollars each over and above the taxes and fees currently dedicated. Assuming a 50 year working life (age 20 through age 70), that is about an extra $21,000.00 a year, every year over and above Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and other fees and premiums they already pay. The money just isn't there to pay for these three, and to try to do so would tank the economy raising costs even more and putting these programs in even worse shape.

Instead of the Fiscal Cliff, lets just get on with the tax increase, give the democrats the money they want. New minimum income tax for every American $21,000.00. Your minimum tax withholding rate is 75% until you pay in $21,000.00 in withholding, then it goes to the present rate. If you don't put in $21,000.00 then the government takes 90% of your benefits until the tax bill is paid. We can call it the Obama is Fair tax.

Oh I know that isn't progressive enough. So lets make it a minimum tax of $15,000.00, but it is $50,000.00 for those making over $250,000.00 a year. That should be about right. Now is that a progressive tax or what. Rich pay over 3 times as much. Now it really would be the Obama is Fair tax.

If we don't do anything we will have a more regressive tax than the sales tax is now. That tax is called inflation. The poor pay far more tax this way than the rich do. Worst it taxes food and medicine which aren't even subject to sales tax. But inflation is the democrat way!

Just what is so difficult about this topic such that so many people totally fail to understand it?

Lots of people want their Government to be a combination helping hand and safety net. If some people can't meet all their needs by themselves, the Government will give it to them. Nobody would be homeless. Nobody would suffer from lack of health care, or not enough food to eat. Everyone would have nice clothes to wear and anything/everything else they could possibly want. In short, everyone would live like kings. Noble sentiment... (here it comes... wait for it...) BUT...

I don't expect the government to give people enough money to "live like kings", I am not even against the government cutting spending for welfare programs.

Ok, I will say this. You are somewhat ahead of the curve for being willing to make any cuts. And I agree that 'live like kings' is a tad unrealistic, but where do you draw the line on what is cut-able and what isn't?

I say, slightly lower the minimum incomes to be eligible for Foodstamps and welfare..
Perhaps make even a smaller raise to the lowest families on the chain

The programs that most will protest over any cuts whatsoever and going to be the most expensive ones. You know the ones I am talking about. The Big Three.

FDR's Social Security, Bush the Younger's Medicare Part D, and LBJ's Medicare.

Medicare AND Social Security are taken out of our paychecks per pay-period. These taxes are in addition to our Federal and State income taxes....

You better NOT cut something I've been paying into my whole working life...

I don't think that most people understand the magnitude of the problem. Per data from both the Federal Reserve and the IRS, in order to totally fund these 3 programs (and this is JUST these 3), every single US Taxpayer will have to pay a bit over 1 Million dollars each over and above the taxes and fees currently dedicated. Assuming a 50 year working life (age 20 through age 70), that is about an extra $21,000.00 a year, every year over and above Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and other fees and premiums they already pay. The money just isn't there to pay for these three, and to try to do so would tank the economy raising costs even more and putting these programs in even worse shape.

I do not buy that statistic... Not one bit. Sounds like right wing spin on the numbers...

We had a balanced budget <20 years ago....

We need cuts in a BAD way. Not just cuts to the rate of growth (though those are vital as well) but actual, real CUTS to every sector of Government spending. To fail to do so is to tax/borrow/print each and every one of us into abject poverty. The US Government has over-promised us all. Some of us see the bill coming, and know that we are going to have to pay it.

Yes we need cuts. But it needs to be middle of the road. If you cut too much, you are going to further the depression.... (Greece!)

The 'but' is 'how is the Government gonna pay for it?' (NB: It does not matter which Government we are talking about here, they ALL have the same constraint).

Governments can only fund their activities using some combination of the ONLY three sources of money available to them. And, each one of the three sources has a downside.

The three sources of money for the Governments to spend are: 1. Taxes, 2. Borrowing, and 3. 'Printing' it.

The downside of taxation is that the higher taxes are, the less money is left over to help fund the sort of economic activity that creates wealth, and it is kinda hard to redistribute that which you don't have....

The increased taxes could be used to fund infrastructure projects. Hence putting the money right where it needs to be to create wealth, at the bottom. This employs people of all classes, and puts the money directly into the economy, where it needs to be.

Or... how about this radical idea... We COULD leave the money in the economy, where it needs to be, and you know.... NOT tax it out of the economy in the first place.

I only advocate taxing it "out" of the economy, for the purposes of using it to support the economy. ..
Your heart is in the right place, but I believe that taxing the rich at higher rates will bring in extra money that can be used to directly fund the private sector and working class by-proxy. I don't advocate raising taxes simply to pay for existing programs. I say make big cuts, some increases, and tax the rich at a more progressive rate to foot the bill for much needed infrastructure, which in turn supports the economy...

It's how we turned around depressions in the past, why wouldn't it work now?#resist

"He added today that he was prepared to bet ‘a large sum of money’ on the UK being out of the EU within a decade if the government was unable to secure major changes on the relationship with Brussels."

It's time this country acted by charging those at the top with High Treason, as that's what it amounts to!

"Government has no right to make itself a party in any debate respecting the principles or modes of forming, or of changing, constitutions. It is not for the benefit of those who exercise the powers of government, that constitutions, and the governments issuing from them, are established.

In all those matters, then rights of judging and acting are in those who pay, and not those who receive. “A constitution is the property of a nation, and not those who exercise government”

Treasonable Acts since joining the EU

When John Major came back from Maastricht and said the Queen was now a citizen of Europe, he attempted to destroy a constitutional principle, that our Kings can never be vassal Kings to any one. In so doing John Major committed the Major Crime of High Treason.

Edward Heath set up a conspiracy to subvert our ancient constitution, the Major Crime of Sedition, sedition at this level is High Treason. Heath also conspired with others to hand over this country to a foreign power, the EEC/EU, the Major Crime of High Treason.

Sedition is any act designed to subvert the constitution. High Treason is any act designed to betray the Sovereign, constitution and people of England.

Do people really think Britain is going to be any better under him?
If we think Cameron is wet then this chap above is going to turn out to be
thoroughly soaking in comparison. He has about as much metal in him as one could
possibly find in a plastic teaspoon.

Mr Balls’s flirting with the idea of a wealth tax suggests the party is prepared to target the rich to help meet its social objectives.

There we go again, the one thing most ruinous to the British economy is it's
continuous high spending on social causes. Labour calls it, "A target on the
rich to help meet it's social objectives" I call it "Old Communists philosophy"
that is buried deep in the psyche of most Labour party members.

I sit back and smile at all this lot seated in Westminster for not one of them
has got a clue on what to do today to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
...Guy Fawkes where the hell are you in our hour of most need. I have said this
before and I will say it again, "America, if you wont to know where your going
tomorrow then just study Britain over the past one hundred years for the
answer is there for you are going down that same slippery slope"!!...bought
about by adopting social policies that you will find you could ill afford.The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.